SU0014573 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. PC : 12-4-86 SU-86-10 Page 1 RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report based on the following reasons : BACKGROUND: The applicant is appealing a staff decision that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared before further processing of Major Subdivision Application No. SU-86-10 . The project consists of an 82-lot rural residential subdivision on approximately 229. 5 acres in the Collierville area, north of Lodi . The project is essentially the same subdivision first approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 5 , 1981 (S-81-10) , which involved 102 lots. That approval was extended through October 15, 1985. Unit or Phase I , consisting of 13 lots, was all that was completed before the final extension period. EIR BACKGROUND: In 1979, EIR-79-1 was prepared by County staff to address poten- tial environmental impacts for a General Plan Amendment proposal containing four different properties. This EIR examined the impacts of expanding the Rural Residential designation in Collierville. The subject parcel was one of the four properties. Once the General Plan Amendment was approved, a subdivision application (S-81-10) was also processed and approved. When the present application was submitted, staff erroneously assumed that there were no new environmental impacts and pro- ceeded to schedule the subdivision for public hearing and refer the project to applicable agencies for comments. Once staff began receiving comments, it became clear that not only were there several new issues that had to be addressed, but there were also impacts identified in the original EIR (EIR-79-1 ) that had never been reflected in the initial subdivision approval . In fact , the original EIR had never been recirculated for the sub- division as required by CEQA, but rather, a Negative Declaration had been adopted. APPEAL: Originally, the applicant filed an appeal of the requirement that he pay the necessary fees for the preparation of the EIR, and the appeal was scheduled for review by the Planning Commissionon September 4, 1986. At that time, the applicant was advised that the Commission did not have the authority to waive the required